Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
Adapting the Electrospinning Process to Provide Three Unique Environments for a Tri-layered In Vitro Model of the Airway Wall
Published on: July 31, 2015
A comparative study of the epithelial regeneration capacities of two biomaterials in vitro
Zhiwei Tian1, Zhongqi Zhao1, Marco Aoqi Rausch1,2
1Competence Center for Periodontal Research, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Background:
Regeneration of periodontal epithelium remains a major focus in current dental research, with various exogenous substitute materials being applied in clinical practice. Yet, the highly organized structure of native tissue still poses considerable challenges for biomaterials attempting to mimic the original environment. In this study, we investigated the effects of a newly developed gelatin/polycaprolactone nanofiber (GPF) and a micro-scaled collagen matrix (CM) on the biological behavior of oral epithelial Ca9-22 cells, aiming to assess the clinical applicability of the materials and conducted a preliminary exploration of the interplay between the Ca9-22 cells and the material properties.
Methods:
The oral epithelial Ca9-22 cell line was cultured onto the GPF, CM, and tissue culture plate (TCP) for 3, 7, and 14 days. Cell morphology, attachment proliferation/viability, the gene expression of keratin 14 (KRT14), keratin 10 (KRT10), integrin β-1 (ITGB-1), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), interleukin 8 (IL-8) and interleukin 1β (IL-1β), the levels of IL-8 proteins were evaluated.
Results:
Ca9-22 cells exhibited distinct adhesion morphology and distribution patterns on two biomaterials. After 3 days of culturing on GPF, Ca9-22 cells demonstrated higher levels of proliferation/viability compared to those on CM. In most situations, except KRT10, both materials effectively stimulated gene and protein expression related to epithelial regeneration and wound healing, especially in the early stage of culture. Compared to CM, GPF demonstrated a stronger stimulation of KRT14 expression at day 3 and a more significant enhancement of KRT10 expression after 7 and 14 days. However, it was less effective at promoting IL-8 expression after 3 days than the former. The gene expression of KRT10 was suppressed by CM at day 7. The IL-8 protein production was the highest in cells grown on CM.
Conclusion:
The morphology and cellular functions of oral epithelial cells differed between GPF and CM. Both materials are capable of promoting epithelial regeneration; however, GPF is more conducive to functional stratification of newly formed epithelium, while CM holds a more sustained effect on epithelial proliferation.
